Senator THYE. Last year the Senate did pass S. 115, and that required that an applicant would have to have a passing grade of 70 before his 5 and 10 points veterans' preference could be considered. Of course, that was pased in the Senate and is still pending in the House.

Mr. MOYER. That is right, but under the present law, where a written examination is given, a person may be rated anywhere from zero to 100. If he makes 60 and is a disabled veteran, he is given 10 points. His name goes to the top of the register for most positions. If he makes 65 and is a veteran, nondisabled veteran, he is given 5 points, and his name goes on the list. That practice would be followed under this bill.

With respect to unassembled examinations, at the present time veterans and nonveterans are required to meet the minimum qualifications. If they do so, they are rated 70 and the 5 and 10 points added to their ratings.

Under this bill for those highly specialized, high grade positions in which the category system of grading is used, the veteran and nonveterans still must be qualified, otherwise he will be rejected.

If he is qualified, why he is given the preferences which are enumerated in the bill. That is, the disabled for most positions would go to the top of the register, all the regular veterans would be placed ahead of all others in the category and must be considered ahead of

nonveterans.

Senator DwORSHAK. At what level, Mr. Moyer, do you draw the line of distinction on these unassembled examinations?

Mr. MOYER. Unassembled examinations are held for positions for which no adequate written tests have been devised.

For example, your high-grade scientific positions, your professional positions, and research positions, even postmaster positions in firstclass offices are rated on the basis of education, training, and experience as evaluated as a result of a personal investigation.

Mr. JACOBI. Mr. Chairman, the trouble is that the bill does not limit the category system to any specific type of job.

Senator DWORSHAK. I was going to raise that point. Is that not true, Mr. Moyer?

Mr. MOYER. The bill gives the Commission the discretion as to when to use it, which I think is proper. I do not think the Commission would use the category system for positions for which valid written tests have been developed.

Senator DwORSHAK. You would say then that this bill does not enhance the existing authority of the Commission to follow that plan? Mr. MOYER. No; there are no restrictions in this bill. In other words, it leaves it discretionary with the Commission as to whether or not category ratings will be used.

Senator DwORSHAK. That would give you more authority than you

have now.

Mr. MOYER. We have no authority for category ratings at the present time.

Senator DwORSHAK. I mean for the unassembled examinations. This would give you more authority to apply that same principle which you do in the higher levels now, to lower levels, under the provisions of this bill.

Mr. MOYER. Yes; the Commission would have authority to apply the category ratings to lower grade positions, if they saw fit. I do not think that would be practical.

Mr. JACOBI. That is the point we make, that it is applicable to any job, thereby losing the right of the veteran to 10 points, which he now has, and which he would have under the numerical system.

Mr. MACELROY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make my remarks as brief as possible.

I would like to take issue with some of the statements made by the proponents of this bill.

We disagree with Mr. Jacobi of the American Legion, insofar as one thing he mentioned relative to the granting of 5 and 10 points preference prior to examination.

Our organization is on record that way and I must clarify that point. I do believe it would work, as Mr. Jacobi has explained, and that is based on the practical experience in the last 5 years as a national civil service officer with a veterans' organization.

There is no qualification in the bill, and so far as I have read reports in the House, there has been nothing said except by Dr. Flemming, one of the proponents of the Hoover Commission recommendations, insofar as what cases or what positions the category ratings would be used in.

Outside of that statement, I have found nothing else in the record which would say to the Commission that the Commission could not operate in the low levels, and to justify that, section 8 of this bill says:

* by categories, describing the degrees of qualifications and capabilities of competitors; except that category ratings shall not be used in the case of competitors for positions in the field service of the Post Office Department.

Mr. Winslow of the Bureau of the Budget made a statement that this would not cost more. I fail to see why it would not cost more. In fact, in my opinion, it would cost a great deal more. The same amount of work has to be accomplished. The same number of examinations will have to be held. The same amount of paper work will be involved, the same number of personnel will have to be trained and schooled and occupied on a full-time basis in the Department. It would come under the departmental appropriation; it would relieve the Commission of some of its appropriation, but certainly the work would still have to be accomplished.

It is my belief that it would create a great deal more expense because, in addition to that, the Commission must maintain at least a small force of recruitment and placement officers and personnel. Not only to hold their own examinations, but to check, experts in that field to check on the operation of these employment plans and the departmental activities.

In addition to that, this bill would propose to set up under section 11 all the records which I do not believe they now have; in other words, all the records, in addition to the examining records. That in turn would increase the number of persons involved.

In order to even begin to police this activity, the Commission would be compelled to hire and train many new investigators, or whatever their proper term is, for any type on inspection service.

It is my opinion, and I think that my organization will back me up in this, that it would create a tremendous expenditure of money,

either in the appropriations for the departments, or in the Civil · Service Commission. And what are we accomplishing?

It seems to me that the Civil Service Commission since 1865 has proven its worth in the merit system. They are recognized by every citizen in the United States as being the agency to protect applicants, and see that they are given all the things that are required in securing Government positions.

With the same amount of appropriation and the same amount of effort the Civil Service Commission could properly perform the same functions as outlined in this bill here, and much better. They already have the trained personnel which they could expand. If necessary, they could increase their regional offices to a degree where they could take over this type of work and still keep it within the merit system, because it would not permit any opening or opportunity for the spoils system.

Thank you very much.

Senator DwORSHAK. Are there any other witnesses?

Mr. WINSLOW. If I might, I would like to make just one comment, to be inserted following Mr. MacElroy's comments in the record. Section 7 (b) of the bill, H. R. 8925, as reported by the House, sets forth very clearly the situation with respect to the veterans rated by categories.

It says:

* the names of preference eligibles shall be entered on the appropriate civil-service registers of eligibles, in accordance with their respective category ratings and ahead of all others in the same category. For all other positions for which eligibles are rated by categories, the names of preference eligibles shall be entered on the appropriate civil-service registers of eligibles, in accordance with their category ratings, and ahead of all others in the same category, except that the names of eligibles included under section 2 (1) (2) (2) (5) and (6) shall be entered at the top of the highest category.

In other words, the 10-point veteran goes to the top of the highest category, all 5-point veterans to the top of their respective categories, which in effect brings them ahead in terms of rating of persons whom they normally would not be above if the examination were rated numerically.

Senator DwORSHAK. Are there any other witnesses?

Mr. LATIMER. May I place in the record a statement from George D. Riley, legislative committee, American Federation of Labor? The statement is as follows:

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, MEMBER, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Under ordinary circumstances, a bill of the nature and scope of S. 3830, might properly be regarded as related only to the prerogatives of management. Were it not for the fact that employees and prospective employees will have to live under the conditions provided in this bill and will be subjected to any ill effects of its intent and administration, the fact would still hold true.

Merely to say that this bill has the urgent endorsement of the Hoover Commission is not in itself an overpowering recommendation for its adoption. Under the Hoover national administration, the President had the authority to reorganize the entire Government over a period of 2 years. The results were pitifully small and limited in application. Indeed, what is intended to be done under S. 3830 was not done by President Hoover whose Commission now is said to want this bill.

It is noted that it was not until June 26, 1950, that the discovery was made that there ought to be a bill on this subject. It also should be noted that em

ployees nor their representatives were in no respect considered as sufficiently important to be asked even for their opinions on how they would be affected by this proposed legislation. It should not be overlooked that even employees who have an equity in this type legislation might have some views valuable enough to solicit and consider before the legislation is proposed. There was a time in the Civil Service Commission when the Advisory Council of which Mr. Arthur S. Flemming was chairman did go into such matters on a consultative basis. Much good came out of the meetings and the "bugs" were shaken loose beforehand.

This was refreshing and showed the hallmarks of progressive thinking.

In collaboration with the unions affiliated to the Government Employees Council and the American Federation of Labor, it should be pointed out that this S. 3830 is little more nor less than a revival of the efforts the boondoggling Brownlow Commission of the late 1930's, the Reed committee, and others to gear the Federal civil service to the campus and classroom system.

The Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel, as early as 1934 got into this subject knee deep. On that Commission were Lotus Coffman, Louis Brownlow, Luther Gulick, Charlie Merriam, and others of the in-and-outers who flit from flower to flower, getting the various brands of honey mixed into a heterogeneous mass-or mess. From this orbit, also, have emerged some of the faster-thinking go-getters who somehow have acquired the title of experts. Indeed, one of the sessions of the Commission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel was held in the home locality of Herbert Hoover-Palo Alto.

Typically, those who travel in this rarified atmosphere of expertism likewise as antiunion, antiemployee, and antiveteran, so shown by the record as I have watched it. It is recalled that in 1938, the Brownlow commission attempted to destroy the United States Civil Service Commission and its bipartisan composition and to install a one-man job-giver in its stead. In the light of later events, there are those who came to be convinced that manner in which the Commission swayed with the winds, the reorganizers might have had something there.

It is understandable that the veterans organizations should stand solidly in opposition to this measure. This is because this bill conveys the suggestion that at least from an oblique angle this measure seems designed to uproot the veterans' preference system, all protestations of the bill's advocates and their careful explanations to the contrary notwithstanding. Let's have an example: To grade applicants by the college method, viz, the "top one-fifth" of the "top one-tenth, etc.," is to rule out in effect, certainly under ordinary conditions, the lower four-fifths of the lower nine-tenths. It's like the cream on the bottle. When that is skimmed off, the "bluejohn" can be tossed down the drain and another one-fifth or another one-tenth drawn from. This therefore sets up a high premium on those who are highly developed or overdeveloped mentally and capable of doing whizbang examinations in assembled tests. In unassembled tests, such examinations clearly can be open to any caprice which comes to mind.

Further, the Civil Service Commission has long shown symptoms of trying to delegate its authority to the appointing agencies and to become bookkeeping enterprise. Either the Congress should declare what its policy shall be henceforth on how competitive the competitive system shall be or it should reject the screwball proposals which perennially pop up, even as the spring flowers. Nothing is more needed than a rewrite of the act of January 16, 1883.

This bill would introduce "employment plans" instead of examinations and the Commission would be permitted to get rid of the competitive system under the guise of consultation with the agencies. The Hoover administration is recalled as rather friendly to the competitive system. Figures indicate that the Hoover administration did more recruiting competitively than many administrations before or since.

Now back to the top-fifth again. The veterans undoubtedly realize, as do nonveterans that once having come down on the list to the lower four-fifths in this category system, even those who are below the highest-adjudged class need never be appointed, thus resulting in an overdeveloped scholastic atmosphere in the Government service. I need not remind this committee what has been taking place in recent months and years among some fast-thinking overdeveloped mentalities whom the statutes have been able to touch only because they perjured themselves, due to the limitation on prosecutions.

I suggest that a much clearer way of knowing more about the purposes behind this proposed legislation is to have the Civil Service Commission first submit the regulations it intends drawing up under this bill and then let us examine those regulations.

Consider the language in section 8 (c) and what I am saying will be even clearer. It reads in part:

"The Commission shall prepare standards for determining when the number of eligibles in any category or categories to be considered is insufficient or excessive. If, under such standards, there is an excessive number of eligibles in the category or categories to be considered, the office shall make selection from such lesser number of eligibles in such category or categories as may be determined to be sufficient under such standards."

If there was ever such a delegation of authority to the appointing agency, have yet to read it. In effect, this means, as was proposed for the selection of attorneys under the trick board of legal examiners system, now repudiated by Congress and defunct, that an appointing officer's eye may roam all over creation in search of those whom he may seek to appoint. It is little removed the plan in vogue under the repudiated method of selecting attorneys because under that plan it was possible to hold the number of eligibles to 300 and to select the last name on the register as well as the first or any in-between through the ungraded process. This bill, therefore, provides a refinement or perhaps a lack of refinement of the former process.

Significantly, the Post Office Department field service is excluded from this bill. If it is not acceptable to that Department and if the proponents of the bill do not seek to foist it upon that service, why can it be so good for the remainder of the Government service?

Finally, this measure is but one of a series of antiemployee bills which have been cropping up particularly at this session of the Congress. I confidently make the forecast that if the Congress favors this bill, it will be only a matter of short time before the Members, including Senators, will have this problem dumped individually at their doorsteps for correction, just as soon as the labor market becomes loose again. Citizens will be wanting an explanation why they are allowed to be counted out before they can be counted in for appointment to Federal jobs.

Senator DwORSHAK. Thank you.

I think this will conclude the hearing of the subcommittee.

(Whereupon, at 3: 45 p. m., the hearing was concluded and the committee recessed.)

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT

THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

1. That the Postmaster General remain a Cabinet officer, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but should not be an official of a political party, such as chairman of a national committee.

2. That there be a Director of Posts under the Postmaster General who should be appointed by the President without term and confirmed by the Senate. (Accomplished in substance through creation under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of office of Deputy Postmaster General.)

3. That the postal service be decentralized into 15 regions under regional directors of posts and district superintendents. (Only recommendation of the Hoover Commisssion not favored by the President and the Postmaster General.) 4. That there be appointed by the President of a national board of seven advisers serving part time and representing the different elements of the public. (Included in Reorganization Plan 3 which sets up such an advisory Board of nine including the Postmaster General and Deputy Postmaster General. Seven members from the public have been appointed and confirmed.)

5. That the confirmation of postmasters by the Senate be abolished. (S. 2213 was introduced to carry this out. After hearings and full consideration of bill, committee, by a vote of 8 to 4, indefinitely postponed action.)

6 and 7. That there be improved financial, budget, and accounting controls in the Post Office Department. (Such provisions were contained in S. 2212, S. 2509, S. 3830 and H. R. 8923, and enacted into law, Public Law 712, 81st Cong.; also see Public Law 231, 81st Cong.)

8. That the Congress authorize and instruct the Postmaster General to adjust rates charged for registered mail, insured mail, money orders, postal notes, postal cards, special delivery, and collect-on-delivery mail so as to make such special services self-supporting. (Apparently the Commission overlooked that postal